AMINA MOHAMED ROHAWALA, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, PANVEL.

ITA 2769/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Amina Mohamed Rohawala, a senior citizen and partner in M/s. Roha Hardware Store, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which upheld the addition of Rs. 8.5 lakhs to her income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer following scrutiny of large cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal found that the addition was incorrectly attributed to the assessee's personal income as the amount was deposited in the firm's account, not the assessee's personal account. The Tribunal's decision was based on the examination of bank statements and the application of relevant legal provisions concerning cash deposits during the demonetization period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123116 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2769/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Amina Mohamed Rohawala Bazar Peth House No.1818, Roha, Raigad-402 109 PAN: ACFPR9911E ...... Appellant Vs. ITO-1, 3 rd Floor, Trifed Tower, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai-410 206 ..... Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mehul Shah Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 19/01/2023 Date of pronouncement : 21/03/2023 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short ‘NFAC”) dated 26.04.2022 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2 ITA No. 2769/Mum/2022 AMINA MOHAMED ROHAWALA “1 On the facts, and in circumstances of the case and in law learned Commissioner of Income tax(Appeal) erred in upholding action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of RS 8,50,000/- to the total income even after submitting that the account in which the aforesaid amount was deposited does not belong to the appellant, but to the partnership firm in which your appellant is a non-executive partner which was duly reported in the response of Cash Transaction 2016 notice which was also submitted to the Assessing Officer as well as to learned Commissioner ofIncome-tax (Appeal). 2. Your Appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, and / or delete any of the above grounds of appeal at or before final disposal of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is senior citizen lady filed a return of income on 31-10-2017 declaring total income of Rs 2,17,150/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Assessee is a partner in firm M/s. Roha Hardware Store. The assessee is entitled for interest and share in profit at the rate of 25%. During the year under consideration department was in possession of information about cash deposit by the assessee with Bank of India Roha Branch account no. 810100008930 amounting to Rs 2 Lacs and State Bank of India Roha Branch account no. 30161549120 amounting to Rs 8.5 Lacs respectively. Assessee was asked to explain the source of said deposits as case was also selected for the reason of large value cash deposit during demonetisation period as compare to returned income. 3. In response to the query assessee submitted her reply vide letter dated 31- 10-2019 and confirmed both the transactions took place but as per her submissions Rs 2 Lacs were deposited in her individual saving bank account held with Bank of India Mentioned (supra) and balance Rs 8.5 lacs were deposited in current account of M/s. Roha Hardware Store maintained with State Bank of India 3 ITA No. 2769/Mum/2022 AMINA MOHAMED ROHAWALA as mentioned (supra) assessing officer was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee and added back Rs. 10.5 lakhs to the income of the Assessee u/s. 69A. Although assessee already filed following information before the AO for verification as under: Note of business activity Copy of books of accounts such as Profit & Loss A/c, Balance-sheet with all its annexure etc. for A.Y. 2017-18 Copy of bank book and cash book for A.Y. 2017-18 Sources for cash deposits during the demonetisation period i.e. [09-11- 2019 to 31-12-2016] Details of all the bank accounts Copy of cash deposits slips used for cash deposit during demonetisation period. 4. Against this order of AO assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) where in Ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee partly in accordance with circular no. F No. 225/100/2017/ITA-11 to the extent of Rs 2 Lacs in her individual saving bank account in Bank of India and sustained the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs 8.5 lakhs deposited in State Bank of India current account in the name of partnership firm. 5. Assessee being aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT (A) preferred this appeal before us. We have gone through the order of AO, order of Ld.CIT (A) and submissions of the assessee along with case laws relied upon. We observed that 4 ITA No. 2769/Mum/2022 AMINA MOHAMED ROHAWALA ample evidences along with the submissions of the assessee were there on the record wherein assessee has claimed about deposit in individual account as well as deposit in firm’s account. We have gone through the bank statement of assessee as well as partnership firm placed on record. Even the order of Ld. CIT (A) also gives an indication that there were two entities on the record and that’s why he allowed the relief to the extent of Rs 2 lakhs only instead of Rs 5 lacs. As per the board circular the limit of relief applicable in the case of assessee above 70 years of age relief amount is 5 lakhs. It clearly indicates that he took cognizance of this fact that only Rs 2 lakhs pertains to assessee’s individual saving account and balance pertains to the firm in which she is a partner. In the background of above we direct the AO to delete the addition made in the case of assessee with a liberty to enquire the same transaction in the file of partnership firm. 7. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed Order pronounced in the open court on 21 st day of March, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, दिन ांक/Dated: 21/03/2023 Mahesh R. Sonavane 5 ITA No. 2769/Mum/2022 AMINA MOHAMED ROHAWALA Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रदिव िी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त CIT 4. दवभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आय.अपी.अदि., मुबांई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. ग र्ड फ इल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy. /Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai